Non-Catholics
Section:

The Bible / Scripture

Sources:
Various

Important
Notice: Items herein may not apply to all persons.
References and translations may vary. We make no guarantees
regarding any item herein. Do not take items out of context. Do
not inflict harm on yourself or others, break laws, take
unsuitable/incautious or inappropriate/drastic actions, or take
figurative items literally. Use of site is at your own risk and
is subject to our terms of use. For more terms information, see below
and click
here

*
If faith comes from the Bible, why does Scripture say that faith
comes from hearing (see Rom. 10:17)?

*
If faith comes from the Bible, what did the earliest Christians do
who had no bible, before a word of the New Testament was ever
written?

*
If faith comes from the Bible, why was the faith around before the
Bible?

Closing Quotations...

"Indeed,
I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the
Catholic Church [who codified the bible] did not influence me to do
so." (St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, c. 397 A.D.)

"When
finally the Gospels were written, they did not prove what
Christians believed, nor did they initiate that belief; they
merely recorded in a systematic manner what they already knew. Men
did not believe in the Crucifixion because the Gospels said there
was a Crucifixion; they wrote down the [account] of the Crucifixion,
because they already believed in it." (Archbishop Fulton
Sheen)

*
If Christianity depends upon the Bible, why didn't the Apostles
create and distribute completed bibles?

*
If Christianity depends upon the Bible, why was Christianity
around before a word of the New Testament was ever written? "The
Church was spread throughout the entire Roman Empire before a
single book of the New Testament was written. There were already
many martyrs in the Church before there were either Gospels or
Epistles. An authoritative and recognized ministry was carrying on
the Lord's work at His command, speaking in His name as witnesses
of what they had seen, before anyone decided to write a single
line of the New Testament." (Archbishop Fulton Sheen)

*
If Christianity depended upon the Bible, how did Christians (that
is, Catholics) already exist to put together the Bible? Isn't it
much more accurate to say that the Bible depended upon
Christianity than to say that Christianity depends upon the Bible?

Some
Catholic Quotations...

"When
finally the Gospels were written, they recorded a tradition, they
did not create it. It was already there. After a while men had
decided to put in writing this living tradition and voice, which
explains the beginning of the Gospel of Luke: 'That thou mayest
know the verity of those words in which thou hast been
instructed.' The Gospels did not start the Church; the Church
started the Gospels. The Church did not come out of the Gospels;
the Gospels came out of the Church. The Church preceded the New
Testament, not the New Testament the Church. First there was not a
Constitution of the United States, and then Americans, who in the
light of that Constitution decided to form a government and a
nation. The Founding Fathers preceded the Foundation; so the
Mystical Body of Christ preceded the reports written later by
inspired secretaries. And incidentally, how do we know the Bible
is inspired? It does not say is! Matthew does not conclude his
Gospel saying: 'Be sure to read Mark; he is inspired, too.'
Furthermore, the Bible is not a book. It is a collection of
seventy-three books in all. It is worth opening a Bible to see if we
have them all and have not been cheated. These widely scattered
books cannot bear witness to their own inspiration. It is only by something outside the Bible that we know it is inspired."
(Archbishop Fulton Sheen)

"The
New Testament writings, however, are not the foundation of the
Church, or even, in a manner of speaking, its operating manual.
The Church precedes them. The New Testament consists of teaching
tools about Jesus (the Gospels), a history (The Acts of the
Apostles), letters of correction and instruction (such as Paul's
epistles), and what some consider a symbolic condemnation of the
Roman emperor Nero (Revelation), under whose persecution St. Peter
and St. Paul were martyred. The New Testament was assembled to
serve a Church already functioning and growing. Papias, the bishop
of Hierapolis in the early second century, records that 'Matthew
compiled the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone
translated them as well as he could.' The original gospel
tradition was oral, though it is probable that some believers
owned small chapbooks. At the earliest, the first written gospels
date two decades after the death of Jesus. They had the dual
challenge of capturing an oral tradition and accurately
translating it from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek, which is the
language of the earliest gospels we have. There was also the
difficulty of establishing the canon. The Gospels according to
Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were not the only sayings of Jesus
circulating among believers. There were numerous apocryphal books
- some merely fictionalized devotional literature, some outright
forgeries, others representing contesting views." (Crocker)

*
How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when the
first word of the New Testament wasn't written until years after
Christ's death?

*
How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when the
actual canon of the Bible (list of inspired books) wasn't settled
for many years?

*
How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when most of
them were illiterate?

*
How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when
converts were produced at a much faster rate than hand-written
copies of the Bible could ever have been produced (remember that
there were no computers, copiers, printers, etc. at that time)?

*
How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when Scripture
itself is clear that Christians existed before any single book of
the New Testament could ever have been penned?

*
How could the earliest Christians have read the Bible when they
were being persecuted and logistics would have made the collecting
of all books difficult or impossible?

*
Considering that Scripture does not indicate which books are
inspired, how do you know which books actually belong in the
Bible?

*
Considering that the beginnings of Christianity saw numerous
spurious writings that some considered as Scripture (cf. 2 Thes.
2:2), how do you
know that the books actually appearing in your version of the
bible actually contain all applicable books? Remember that since
no original copies of these spurious books still exist, you would
never be able to review them.

*
Even the earliest Christians did not know with infallible
certainty which specific books comprised the Bible, so how do you
- so many years later - know with infallible certainty which books
should comprise the bible?

*
If a book appears in your version of the Bible how do you,
personally, know (not believe or feel, but know) that
the book should be included as part of the bible?

*
Who told you that the books in the New Testament were Scripture?
Would you be surprised to know it was the Catholic Church? If you
reject the authority of the Catholic Church, why are you depending
upon this same Church to determine the canon of Scripture? If you
place your faith in the Catholic Church to determine the books of
Scripture, why do you withhold your submission to this Church
which gave the world the New Testament? Remember that the only way
you can know a book of the New Testament is inspired is because
the Catholic Church has said that it is!

*
Are you aware that Protestant leaders initially rejected even more
books of Scripture than the deuterocanonical books - for example,
they rejected certain books of Scripture that couldn't be squared
with their new theologies? If you don't condemn them for such
actions, how do you purport that they had the authority to do
this? If you do condemn them for such actions, why do you follow
in their footsteps by rejecting the deuterocanonical books?

*
If the deuterocanonical books should be rejected, why did
the Apostles use the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament -
a translation which included the deuterocanonical books? Do you
claim to know more than they did? [Note: The Septuagint refers
to the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It is named for the
number of translators traditionally involved (seventy). Most Old
Testament quotations in the New Testament are taken from it.]

*
If the deuterocanonical books should be rejected, why did Christ
use the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament - a
translation which included the deuterocanonical books? Do you believe
you know better than Christ?

*
If the deuterocanonical books should be rejected, why did
the early Christian writers - ones who had learned from the
Apostles - accept them?

*
If the deuterocanonical books should be rejected, are so many
quotations in the New Testament taken from the Septuagint
translation of the Old Testament - a translation which included the deuterocanonical books?

*
Are you under the impression that the Catholic Church added the deuterocanonical books
to the Bible at a much later date? This is a common misconception
among Protestants. Unbiased research should prove beyond doubt
that the Catholic Church accepted these books from the beginning
(when she first listed the books which comprise Scripture). In
fact, she is known to have enumerated all of the books of the
bible - including the deuterocanonical books - as early as 382
A.D. [see the "Decree of (Pope St.) Damasus" from the
acts of the Roman Synod, 382 A.D.] and has done so
consistently since then.

*
How can you feel comfortable rejecting the deuterocanonical books
in light of the above merely because some Jews - many years after
the death of Christ - rejected them! Why do you depend upon
Jewish authority after the death of Christ? Why especially do you depend on Jewish
authority which contradicts the practice of Jesus and the
Apostles who accepted these books?

*
Do you realize that if the deuterocanonical books are Scripture
(which they are!) and you reject them, you are rejecting the word
of God?

In
Closing...

"St.
Luke was a proselyte to the Christian religion, but whether from
paganism or rather from Judaism is uncertain; for many Jews were
settled at Antioch, but chiefly such as were called Hellenists,
who read the Bible in the Greek translation of the Septuagint. St.
Jerome observes from his writings, that he was more skilled in
Greek than in Hebrew, and that therefore he not only always makes
use of the Septuagint translation, as the other authors of the New
Testament who wrote in Greek do, but he refrains sometimes from
translating words when the propriety of the Greek tongue would not
bear it." (Butler)

*
Why does your translation of the bible omit the deuterocanonical books of the Old
Testament? Does it not bother you to use a bible translation that rejects
books used by Jesus and the Apostles (see
above)? How can you trust a bible translation which rejects such books?

*
You, who claim to love the bible - even to take it as your sole
rule of faith - does it not bother you that your bible translation
is missing
books? That you are "being cheated out of Scripture"?

*
For those who tend to see various numbers as signs, does it not
bother you to use a bible translation with only 66 books, especially since the
first 'protest-ants' may be seen leaving Jesus in Jn. 6:66?

*
How can you concede that the Catholic Church has the authority to
determine which books belong to the Bible, but deny the Catholic
Church the authority to interpret these books? Note: Remember,
it was the Catholic Church - and the Catholic Church alone - who
determined which books comprise the New Testament.

*
How can you rely on the judgment of the Catholic Church in the weighty
matter of determining the entire New Testament but reject
its judgment even on a 'small' matter of interpretation of a
single passage?

*
Considering that you would not even have a New Testament had it
not been for the painstaking effort of the Catholic Church to
hand-copy and preserve the Bible, how is it that you can accept
the Bible, as it were, "from her hands", yet refuse her
the right to interpret the books she has codified, protected, and
preserved?

*
How is it you can refuse the Catholic Church the authority to
interpret the bible when you have no access to original source
documents - and she has had access to all of them?

*
How can you believe that Christ would leave an important, yet
complex writing - one that can be difficult to understand and can
be distorted to one's destruction (see 2 Pt. 3:15-16) - without
giving anyone supreme authority to interpret it? A mere
businessman would know better than that, much less the omniscient
God!

*
If two passages of Scripture appear to contradict each other, how
can you not consider that this alone necessitates an authority to
determine the correct interpretation of the passages?

*
How is it you can refuse the Catholic Church the authority to
interpret the bible when you and your non-Catholic religion were
not around since the time of the Apostles, and she was?

*
Why is it you reject the Catholic Church's well founded claim -
backed up by history, logic, and evidence - to have the sole right
to interpret the bible, in favor of your own personal 'right' to
interpret the bible? When did you get this right? Who gave it to
you? Since when did you become infallible? If you disagree with
another's interpretation, what makes you right and them wrong?
What if you disagree with translators who are much wiser and more knowledgeable
than you are? How can you ever settle the matter
without an authoritative body to decide among competing
interpretations? If you are not skilled in ancient languages, how
can you ever be sure you have translated and interpreted
correctly? Note: Click
here for more on personal interpretation.

*
If you rely on the Bible for your salvation, does it not bother
you that you have been unable to fully understand and interpret all
of Scripture infallibly (and that there is no authoritative source to go to if you reject the Catholic Church's role as the
sole interpreter of the bible)?

*
How can you refuse the Catholic Church's authority in interpreting
the Bible in favor of your own ability to interpret it,
considering the great amount of effort and resources that would be
needed for such an undertaking? For example, consider that a
proper understanding of a single passage may require an
investigation into ancient ways of speech, rules of grammar,
archeology, etc. As a recent pope has indicated, "What
is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the
speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is
in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is
not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone,
nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go
back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and
with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other
sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak,
the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in
fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to
express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of
speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of
their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator
cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful
examination of the ancient literature of the East." (Pope Pius
XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu")

*
If you are reading an English language version of the Bible, you
are already relying on someone else's interpretation of the
original text of Scripture. How can you allow this
(self-appointed?) interpreter a
right that you deny the Catholic Church? How can anyone possibly
have a better claim to the right to interpret the books of
Scripture than the Catholic Church who has codified Scripture and
preserved and protected it for 2,000 years?

From
An Early Christian Writing...

"These things being so, in order that we may be judged to
have the truth - we who walk in the rule which the Churches have
handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and
Christ from God - admit that the reasonableness of our position
is clear, defining as it does that heretics ought not to be
allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we,
without using Scripture, prove that they have nothing to do with
the Scriptures. If they are heretics, they cannot be Christians,
because it is not from Christ that they have gotten what they
pursue of their own choosing, and from which they incur the name
heretic. Not being Christians, they have acquired no right to
Christian literature; and it might be justly said to them, 'Who
are you? When and from where did you come? Since you are not of
mine, what are you doing with what is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by
what right do you chop in my forest? By whose permission,
Valentine, do you do you divert my streams? By what authority, Apelles,
do you move my boundary markers? And the rest of you, why do you
sow and graze here at your own pleasure? This is my property,
which I have long possessed, which I possessed before you came,
and for which I have a sure title from the very authors whose
property it was. I am the heir of the Apostles. As they carefully
prepared their will, as they committed it to a trust, and as they
sealed it with an oath, so do I hold the inheritance. You
certainly, they always held as disinherited, and they rejected you
as strangers and enemies." [Tertullian ("an excellent early Christian writer" - although he would ultimately fall into heresy),
c. 200 A.D.]

*
If the Church wanted to keep the Bible from people, why did she
codify it and make its existence so public?

*
If the Church wanted to keep the Bible from people, why could she
have not let it just "fall by the wayside" considering
the great persecution of the early Christians and considering that
the original material it was written on was so perishable?

*
If the Church wanted to keep the Bible from people, why did her
monks painstakingly hand-copy it so that it would survive - long
before copiers and printing presses were invented?

*
If the Church kept the Bible from people, how did the Protestant
'Reformers' know of its existence? If she really had wanted to destroy
the Bible, why was it still around at the time of the
'Reformation'? Surely, had she desired to do so, she could have
destroyed it nearly 15 centuries before the various Protestant
sects ever came into existence.

*
If the Church kept the Bible from people, how is it that there
were hundreds of Catholic editions of the Bible in existence
before Luther's translation was penned?

*
If the Catholic Church kept the Bible from people, how did
you get it? Remember that you wouldn't even know about the New
Testament if it wasn't for the Catholic Church - the Church that
codified, protected and preserved the Bible. No Protestant would
even know what a New Testament was without the Catholic Church!

*
If you argue that the Church kept the Bible from being read by the
people since it was written in Latin, you should know that Latin
was commonly taught to those who learned to read. In other words,
"if one could read, he could read Latin."

*
"If the Church kept the bible from people, why were
entire copies of the bible in various vernacular languages even
before the printing press was invented?"

*
If the Church wanted to keep the Bible from people, why does she
grant indulgences for reading it?

*
"If Catholic Church has been keeping the Bible from people, why are
so many Catholic Bibles sold annually?"

*
If the Church wanted to keep the Bible from people, why does she
read from it at every Mass? Why does she take prayers, songs, etc.
from it?

*
If the Church has wanted to keep the Bible from people, why did
she go through so much effort to assist and progress Biblical
science, and to protect translations from error?

*
If the Church has kept the Bible from people, how can you explain
why there are "more ancient copies of Scripture than all
other ancient writings combined"?

*
If the Church has kept the Bible from people, why was the first
Bible ever printed after the invention of the printing press a Catholic
Bible (printed by Johann Gutenberg)?

*
If at times the Church has forbidden bible reading by lay persons,
are you unaware that she had just cause to do so? In fact, the
very salvation of some persons' souls may have depended upon it.
For example, consider that, "Before the Albigensians, the Church had
happily translated the Bible into every vernacular tongue. But now
the Church saw the authority of the Bible abused by cult leaders
who preyed on the ignorance, or the latent extremism, of the
people. In 1129, at the Council of Narbonne, in direct response to
the abuses of the Albigensians and related heresies, the Bible was
forbidden to all save priests, bishops, and others in religious
vocations. The people would hear the Bible in church. But mad-eyed fanatics would not be allowed to wave the Bible above their
heads and claim some new revelation, some special reading - to
common people who were mostly illiterate - that denied the Trinity
or endorsed fornication, abortion, and suicide as positive
deeds."
(Crocker)

*
If the Church has at times indicated that Bible reading may not be
expedient for all, are you unaware that she has had good reason to do so?
Do you not realize that the Bible is a difficult book that is easily
subject to misinterpretation? Do you not realize that certain
uninstructed persons might misunderstand or misapply certain
passages with very detrimental effects (e.g. tearing out one's
eye, cutting off one's arm, promoting & justifying violence, etc.)?
Would you want an uneducated person or your young child to read
the Bible without proper assistance?

*
If you complain that the Catholic Church has kept bibles
"chained up", do you also complain that a bank keeps
their pens chained up? While pens are "a dime a dozen",
ancient bibles were laboriously hand-copied at a high cost. If
your bank had only a few pens and didn't chain them up, how long
do you think it would be before there were no more pens for you to
use? Does the bank's keeping the pens chained up keep you from
using them or doesn't it really keep them there so that when you want
to use them, they will be there? The same may be said of keeping
ancient bibles "chained up" - this kept them available, not
unavailable!

*
If the Church has at times condemned certain uses of Scripture,
are you unaware that she was acting prudently and for the good of
souls? Are you unaware that various false teachers have seriously
misled groups of people with erroneous scripture errors, even
leading them away from Christ? For example, consider this
quotation from Pope Gregory XVI: "Especially
dangerous is the fact that holy Scriptures that have been tainted
with the errors of this author are disseminated to the unwary.
Acting as if he were sent and inspired by God, he speaks in the
name of the Trinity and then uses Scripture as a pretext for
releasing the people from the law of obedience. He twists the
words of holy Scripture in a bold and cunning manner in order to
firmly establish his depraved ravings. He does this in order that,
as St. Bernard used to say, 'He might spread clouds for light or
give poison for honey, or rather in the honey, creating a new
Gospel for the people and laying a different foundation from the
one which is already laid.'" (Pope Gregory XVI,
"Singulari Nos", 1834)

*
If the Church has been cautious about translations into the vernacular,
it should be considered that her worries were not to conceal
scripture from people, but to protect scripture from corruption.
It should be noted that it is a monumental task to accurately
translate scripture into the vernacular, especially before
modern technology was available. The following quotations are
illustrative of the Church's desire to protect scripture from
faulty translations into the vernacular. In fairness to the
Catholic Church, consider how the popes praised scripture and sought
to protect scripture & persons - not harm them - by
restricting vernacular translations: (Note: Emphasis may be added
below)

"For
you should have kept before your eyes the warnings which Our
predecessors have constantly given, namely, that, if the sacred
books are permitted everywhere without discrimination in the
vulgar tongue, more damage will arise from this than advantage.
Furthermore, the Roman Church, accepting only the Vulgate edition
according to the well-known prescription of the Council of Trent,
disapproves the versions in other tongues and permits only those
which are edited with the explanations carefully chosen from
writings of the Fathers and Catholic Doctors, so that so great a
treasure may not be exposed to the corruptions of novelties, and
so that the Church, spread throughout the world, may be 'of one
tongue and of the same speech' [Gen. 11:1]." (Pope Pius VII,
1816 A.D.)

"We
were overcome with great and bitter sorrow when We learned that a
pernicious plan, by no means the first, had been undertaken,
whereby the most sacred books of the Bible are being spread
everywhere in every vernacular tongue, with new interpretations
which are contrary to the wholesome rules of the Church, and are
skillfully turned into a distorted sense. For, from one of the
versions of this sort already presented to Us we notice that such
a danger exists against the sanctity of purer doctrine, so that
the faithful might easily drink a deadly poison from those
fountains from which they should drain 'waters of saving wisdom'
[Ecclus.
15:3]..." (Pope Pius VII, 1816 A.D.)

"Indeed,
you are aware that from the first ages called Christian, it has
been the peculiar artifice of heretics that, repudiating the
traditional Word of God, and rejecting the authority of the
Catholic Church, they either falsify the Scriptures at hand, or
alter the explanation of the meaning. In short, you are not
ignorant of how much diligence and wisdom is needed to translate
faithfully into another tongue the words of the Lord; so that,
surely, nothing could happen more easily than that in the versions
of these Scriptures, multiplied by the Biblical societies, very
grave errors creep in from the imprudence or deceit of so many
translators; further, the very multitude and variety of those
versions conceal these errors for a long time to the destruction
of many." (Pope Gregory XVI, "Inter praecipuas"',
1844 A.D.)

"Since
in vernacular speech we notice very frequent interchanges,
varieties, and changes, surely by an unrestrained license of
Biblical versions that changelessness which is proper to the
divine testimony would be utterly destroyed, and faith itself
would waver, when, especially, from the meaning of one syllable
sometimes an understanding about the truth of a dogma is formed.
For this purpose, then, the heretics have been accustomed to make
their low and base machinations, in order that by the publication
of their vernacular Bibles, (of whose strange variety and
discrepancy they, nevertheless, accuse one another and wrangle)
they may, each one, treacherously insert their own errors wrapped
in the more holy apparatus of divine speech. 'For heresies are not
born,' St. Augustine used to say, 'except when the true Scriptures
are not well understood and when what is not well understood in
them is rashly and boldly asserted.' But, if we grieve that men
renowned for piety and wisdom have, by no means rarely, failed in
interpreting the Scriptures, what should we not fear if the
Scriptures, translated into every vulgar tongue whatsoever, are
freely handed on to be read by an inexperienced people who, for
the most part, judge not with any skill but with a kind of
rashness? ..." (Pope Pius VII, 1816 A.D.)

Finally,
note that perhaps the Church's concern regarding the purity of
Scripture may seem foreign to those who take any translation of
the Bible for the sole rule of faith and believe that they can
personally interpret Scripture any way they choose. Perhaps,
however, the Church's behavior can be better understood by
realizing that the Church itself does not depend upon Scripture
(as is indicated elsewhere herein) and that she knows she is
charged with protecting and preserving Scripture, and not merely disseminating
it in any haphazard fashion. In testimony to this truth, one can see
that ancient - hand-written - copies of Scripture made by her over
many years match one another very closely, whereas more recent
Protestant translations often vary greatly.

In
Closing...

"The
calm and fair consideration of what has been said will clearly
show that the Church has never failed in taking due measures to
bring the Scriptures within reach of her children, and that she
has ever held fast and exercised profitably that guardianship
conferred upon her by Almighty God for the protection and glory of
His Holy Word; so that she has never required, nor does she now
require, any stimulation from without." (Pope Leo XIII,
"Providentissimus Deus", 1893 A.D.)

*
If the Catholic Church does not highly regard the Bible, why
has she taken so much painstaking care to codify, protect and
preserve it?

*
If the Catholic Church does not highly regard the Bible, why
is it read from at every Mass? Why does it adorn her liturgy,
songs, papal writings, etc.?

*
If the Catholic Church does not highly regard the Bible, why
does she grant indulgences for the reading of Scripture?

*
If the Catholic Church does not highly regard the Bible, why
does she require her members to stand - in respect - for the
reading of the Gospel at Mass?

*
If the Catholic Church does not highly regard the Bible, why has
she been so careful to protect it whereas Protestants have been
the ones to purposely corrupt sacred Scripture (e.g. Martin
Luther's adding "alone" to Rom.3:28 and rejecting various books of Scripture in order
to support his theories)?

*
In contrast to the Catholic treatment and regard for Scripture,
consider the fruits of Protestantism: "Just
as damaging to Christianity was the primitivist Protestant desire to wrench Christianity
from history - or what was seen as centuries of encrusted
superstition. Salvation was now to be found in a single book, the
Bible, and in the distant practice of an imagined unstained and primitive church. Almost immediately,
but certainly by the eighteenth century, and rapidly increasing in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, mainline Protestant
scholars took a similarly critical attitude to the Bible, scraping
at it until it appeared as full of errors
and superstition as [they believed] the Roman Catholic Church
[did].
Protestantism thus became one of the main solvents for the
scrubbing away of any faith that went beyond a general social
gospel of good intentions." (Crocker)

Important
Notice:
Items herein are provided for informational purposes only and
are not comprehensive. Items herein may not apply to all (or
any) person(s). Even if item(s) herein indicate say "you",
"your", "they", "non-Catholic 'Christians'", etc., it / they may
not apply specifically to you or to any given person or persons.
References and translations may vary. Items may be categorized
subjectively. We do not guarantee translation, categorization,
referencing, accuracy, or anything else concerning any item
herein. We are not responsible for - or qualified / intending to
give - any medical advice. We make no guarantee regarding any
item herein. We are not liable for any occurrence which may
result from using this site. We may change punctuation, wording,
capitalization, shorten items, etc. We caution that items herein
may be out of context. We recommend reading Scripture in full
context in an appropriate Catholic Bible. Consult appropriate,
competent authorities of the Catholic Church for assistance in
interpreting / applying Scripture. Interpretation and
application of Scripture should not be contrary to the
perennial, official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Do
not take Scripture passages out of context. Do not inflict harm
on yourself or others, break laws, take unsuitable / incautious
or inappropriate / drastic actions, or take figurative items
literally. We are not responsible for any interpretation /
misinterpretation, application / misapplication, use / misuse,
etc. of Scripture (or of any other item). Use of site is at your
own risk and is subject to our terms of use. Click
here for important cautionary statement regarding Scripture
and other important terms/information. By using this site you agree to all terms.
For more terms information, click
here.

We make no guarantees regarding any item herein. By using
this site you indicate agreement to all terms. For terms information,
see "Important Notice" above and click
here.

"This 'unique', tradition-minded coloring book
which contains some of the most popular Catholic prayers in Latin is a fun way
to become more familiar with Latin prayers & increase Latin language retention!"

An enjoyable and
instructive tool with respect to Latin (the 'beautiful & majestic language of
heaven' and 'official language of the Church' - a language 'consecrated' by the
inscription on the Cross that helps to foster a universal bond in prayer with
Catholics around the world), this publication is suitable for Catholics of most any
age.

+ + +

"This Catholic coloring book
- which provides hours of wholesome & educational recreation - is so much better
for your soul than television!"

+ + +

Paperback Just $7.99

Notice: Prices are subject to change
without notice and do not include any applicable taxes.

Includes: Facts which demonstrate that Luther
was NOT sent by God, Luther received approval of his teaching from Satan,
Luther's misbehavior, some results of Luther's teachings, Luther admits he could
be wrong, and more...

Thank you for being part of over 5,500,000
visitors to MyCatholicSource.com since 2009! *

+All ads subject to our terms. Price
indicated may be base price for non-refundable processing fee,
excluding tax, optional ad enhancements, etc. "Place your ad" /
"list your business" / "list your Catholic product or service free"
/ etc. is not a guarantee that any ad will appear on this site.
Payment of processing fee does not assure appearance of ad on site.
References to target cycles (e.g. "just $##.##/yr.") are not
guarantees [ads that appear on the site may appear for a longer or
shorter time than the indicated target cycles (e.g. from 0 days to
multiples of a target cycle)] and are subject to change at any time
without notice (either retroactively or on a go-forward basis,
either individually / selectively / grouped / or in total).

Reminders: You may not
copy / distribute (including via e-mail, website, etc.) / sell /
etc. information contained on this site (or any images) or use them
for any commercial purpose whatsoever. All applicable content is
owned by us and is protected by copyright laws. Any unauthorized
reproduction / distribution / use of such content is prohibited by
law and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Note that
we reserve the right to prosecute violators to the maximum extent
possible. Also note that views of others do not necessarily reflect our
views. We make no guarantees regarding any item herein and we not
responsible/liable for any consequences which may occur as a -
direct or indirect - result of use of this site. By using this site
(or associated materials), you agree to hold us harmless for all
damages in connection with use of this site (or other materials),
regardless of their nature. Remember that we are not a party to
others' transactions / activities (including posting, browsing of
posts/ads, transfers, contacts / correspondence, etc.) even if
information regarding the transactions / activities appears on this
site or other materials of ours, and that we do not mediate
disputes. You are solely responsible for all consequences of your
transactions / activities. Use of this site is at your own risk,
with no liability whatsoever to us. By using this site, you agree to
all terms. For more terms information, click here.